Smiling Faces - The Undisputed Truth

Sunday, November 6, 2011

This is my journal of weekly news and
events in the ongoing Paul Bergrin trial. It is a summary of how I
read the events and testimony and includes the news source. At the
end of the post you'll find my
assignment of points to the feds and to Paul Bergrin, and again this
week to Judge Martini as well. I have my own personal point system that is interpretive and from my
perspective and will most often be based on belief or disbelief of
testimony. Points will accrue as the trial moves forward. Any
statement in brackets should be attributed to me.

For me it is hard to understand how
anyone can believe the testimony of the procession of convicted
felons seeking to reduce their own prison sentences in exchange for
testimony that helps to convict Paul Bergrin, but that is a
reflection of my own experiences. Without going into too much detail
here, I will say that listening to testimony that changed
significantly from original deposition prior to my arrest to trial
testimony was insightful and helped develop my understanding of how
prosecutors work a case wherein the defendant must be discredited and
viewed with contempt to achieve guilty verdicts.

In my own case, one witness stated in
her original deposition that she had never met me, didn't know me,
and only spoke with me briefly one time when I called my
co-defendant's escort business looking for him and she answered the
phone; this was the truth. By the time she plopped her ass on the
witness stand during trial, that testimony changed to a claim of many
conversations with me, including one in which I begged her to work
for me and sex on calls was the topic. She was brought-in the
courtroom in shackles, but this was hidden from the jury (they were
removed from the courtroom) until she stood-up during testimony in an
absurd attempt to make a point. She was incarcerated on some
unrelated felony and faced several years in prison and she was
working to reduce that sentence.

Another so-called witness testified
that she went to an occasional call (once a month or so) during the
six months she worked with me, charged additional $s for sex, and her
and I never discussed sex when she was deposed; this was the truth.
When she testified in trial, that statement abruptly transformed to
her going to hundreds of calls in the brief time she worked with me
and we discussed sex on calls frequently. Wow! Right?

Now these particular two so-called
witnesses were just escorts – one answered my co-defendant's
telephones on occasion and the other briefly worked with me. The
seriously damaging statements came from other escort service owners
as each was threatened with a major felony prosecution. There really
was solid evidence against these other escort business owners for
actual criminal activities (in one situation it involved credit card
theft, forgery, and fraud), but instead of prosecuting any one of
them, the MBI and prosecutors suborned their false, perjured
testimony in my case.

Consider Salvatore “Sammy the
Bull” Gravano

Sammy murdered
anyone that stepped in his way and that included cops, innocent
citizens, and fellow mobsters. Yet Gravano was a witness for federal
prosecutors and helped them lock away an unimaginable number of
people that committed crimes far less serious than his own. He served
only a couple of years for the uncountable number of murders he
committed as a result of selling his testimony to the government in
exchange for a minor sentence. Being a career criminal, this later
backfired on Gravano as he was sentenced to 19 years for his ecstasy
trafficking ring and is currently in the Supermax USP in Colorado.

The Gravano story
is clear evidence that prosecutors have no concern whatsoever when it
comes to how horrific the crimes of informants are. In my own case,
state witnesses were guilty of various crimes and escaped prison
sentences by selling their false testimony to prosecutors. In the
Paul Bergrin trial, the parade of criminal informants/witnesses that
sold their testimony to the government are already convicted of
crimes and seeking to reduce their own sentences. This is most often
referred to as a Rule 35 Motion.

Note that Rule 35 omits the word
“truthful”

There is nothing
in Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that states a
requirement of truthful testimony or substantial assistance based on
truth and facts. This is the most abused rule in existence in
relation to federal crimes. It is frequently used in the pursuit of
select defendants targeted by government prosecutors, for example
Paul Bergrin. Paul is an attorney that frequently interacted with
criminal defendants in connection to his law practice, so it wasn't
too complicated for prosecutors to dig-up 20 people that have met and
interacted with him on various occasions in a variety of locations.

When Paul allowed
several of these so-called witnesses to work in his law office he
must have seen the possibility of redemption and a changed life. In
reality, several of them connected with other criminals under his
nose and in his offices. Instead of being a positive influence in
their lives, he gets this current parade of criminal liars that would
say or do absolutely anything to get that sentence reduction under
Rule 35. It's easy to say that he should have known better in
hindsight. We often learn the hard way when it comes to helping
others – I know that I sure did as I recounted the help I gave to
several state witnesses in my own trial when I testified.

Do I still walk
out on a limb to help people? No, not really, I tend to stay far away
from people. I love animals though and have been known to feed the
squirrels nuts and talk to the kitty cats around here. I admit to not
even bothering to meet any neighbors. People can be dangerous. As
stated in past posts, informants are a main reason that I passed on
law school. The bottom line is that if no one really knows me or
anything much about my life these days, well, no one can offer false
testimony as there are no facts to include – facts of time, place,
and events are necessary to connect the false testimony, throw in the
damaging lies etc.... Yes, I blog... And?

Week 3 of the Paul Bergrin Trial

The trial didn't resume until Wednesday
so it was a short and mostly uneventful week. Paul continued his
cross-examination of the feds so-called witness and confessed killer
of Kemo, Anthony Young. There was additional rehashing of the
infamous evolving comment, “no Kemo, no case” that is really
about an attorney telling a client that a crime with an actual
eyewitness is a viable case.

Young is the one to claim that Paul
Bergrin spoke to a group of major drug dealers on a dark Newark
street corner and made some far-fetched directive to kill Kemo.

[Isabella's was used as some sort of
stash house by Yolanda Jauregui and her drug trafficking relatives
and cohorts.]

[So now prosecutors have Paul making
this estranged statement to drug dealers on a dark street corner and
a client in Isabella's. Will they also claim that he shouted it from
the rooftops of Newark and how will it evolve if they do?]

Thursday began with Paul continuing the
cross-exam of Anthony Young; however, about an hour into it Judge
Martini called a recess, excused the jury, and voiced his displeasure
with the star witness:

“This man has admitted to lying back
and forth all over the place,” the judge said, referring to Young.
“Every time he spoke to the FBI, he admitted to lying ... now he’s
telling the truth.”

Judge Martini then put prosecutors in
their place, having already warned both Gay and Minish privately:
“When I rule against you, don’t shake your head,” Martini said.
“You don’t like my rulings, sit down and keep a straight face.”

Judge Martini then made the most
important declaration of all: ““You brought this indictment
against this man, and he’s entitled to a fair trial,” Martini
told the prosecutors, referring to Bergrin.”

The cross-examination eventually
resumed and as Bergrin was concluding with Anthony Young, the
so-called witness admitted that the “entire reason” he came
forward, “was to gain his freedom and reduce his time in prison”.
Young already received one letter of cooperation from prosecutors in
the Baskerville case and is now working on another one.

On Friday
prosecutors called Abdul Williams to the stand. Williams is a
convicted felon that Paul tried to help and was working in the law
office for a short time in 2007. According to Williams, Paul confided
in him that he feared Baskerville would implicate him. Williams
described Paul as “agitated, annoyed, concerned, and flustered”
on that day so long ago when he became confidant to Paul.

According to Jason
Grant with The Star Ledger, Abdul Williams seemed to enjoy
testifying against Paul. Williams often smirked, smiled, mocked and
laughed during his testimony and in response to Paul's questions.

[Williams is
nothing but a career criminal seeking a reduced sentence for his
latest legal turmoil.]

[Recall for a
moment the testimony of Yolanda Jauregui. Yolanda claimed that Paul
referred to Baskerville as his “brother”. So why in the hell
would Paul suddenly have this strange fear that he easily professed
to career criminal Williams? This is the root problem with testimony
filled with lies – the stories never really mix. Williams wouldn't
have any testimony to offer if not for this claim, but prosecutors
didn't foresee that it clashed with Yolanda's statement. The
testimony from all government witnesses in this case is filled with
similar inconsistencies.]

All considered it
was another uneventful week in the Paul Bergrin trial as prosecutors
presented yet another career criminal seeking a reduced sentence to
testify against Paul. The irony of this, at least to me, is that the
vendetta against Bergrin is so strong that prosecutors are more than
willing to put career criminals and confessed murderers back on the
street in exchange for their false testimony. How many more so-called
witnesses will later be filing that Rule 35 motion? How many more
will be given letters of cooperation in prearranged deals for their
state court cases?

Many defenders of
the prosecution have mentioned this idiom often: If you lie down
with dogs, you end-up with fleas. Clearly this is applicable to
the federal prosecutors and their witnesses in this case.